UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
|
|
- Henry Alexander
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Case :-cv-00-dcb Document Filed 0// Page of MICHAEL G. RANKIN City Attorney Michael W.L. McCrory Principal Assistant City Attorney P.O. Box Tucson, AZ - Telephone: (0 - State Bar PCC No. Attorneys for City of Tucson 0 MARTIN H. ESCOBAR, vs. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, JAN BREWER, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her Official and Individual Capacity; THE CITY OF TUCSON, a municipal corporation; and BARBARA LaWALL, County Attorney, Pima County, Defendants. THE CITY OF TUCSON, a municipal corporation, vs. Cross-plaintiff, DISTRICT OF ARIZONA THE STATE OF ARIZONA, a body politic; and JAN BREWER, in her capacity as Governor of the State of Arizona, Cross-defendants. No. CV - TUC DCB ANSWER AND CROSS-CLAIM {A00.DOC/}
2 Case :-cv-00-dcb Document Filed 0// Page of 0 The City of Tucson ( Tucson answers the factual allegations in Plaintiff s first amended complaint ( complaint and alleges a crosscomplaint as follows: Answer. Tucson admits the allegations in paragraphs through of the Plaintiff s complaint.. In response to paragraph of Plaintiff s complaint, Tucson admits that it is a municipal corporation in the State of Arizona and affirmatively alleges that it is a charter city formed pursuant to Article, Section of the Arizona Constitution with authority to exercise all powers under its charter except where inconsistent with the Arizona Constitution and general laws of the State.. Tucson admits paragraphs through of Plaintiff s complaint.. Tucson does not contest Plaintiff s personal experience as set forth in paragraphs through. Tucson is without information and belief as to the remaining allegations in these paragraphs and therefore denies said allegations.. Tucson admits paragraphs and of Plaintiff s complaint.. Tucson denies paragraph of Plaintiff s complaint. {A00.DOC/}
3 Case :-cv-00-dcb Document Filed 0// Page of 0. Tucson admits paragraphs and 0 of Plaintiff s complaint.. Tucson denies paragraph of Plaintiff s complaint.. Tucson admits paragraphs through of Plaintiff s complaint.. Tucson denies that it has announced or made clear any intent to enforce any law that places Hispanics or any other persons at substantial risk of loss of civil rights as alleged in paragraph of Plaintiff s complaint. Tucson admits that Defendant Jan Brewer has stated and acted to implement Senate Bill ( SB 0, as amended by House Bill ( HB (the Act, and that such implementation will violate the United States Constitution as set forth in Tucson s crossclaim in this case. Tucson is without information or belief as to any proposed actions by Defendant Barbara LaWall as alleged in paragraph.. Tucson does not have sufficient information or belief regarding the allegations in paragraphs and of Plaintiff s complaint and therefore denies said allegations.. Tucson admits paragraphs through of Plaintiff s complaint. {A00.DOC/}
4 Case :-cv-00-dcb Document Filed 0// Page of 0. In response to paragraph, Tucson admits it is preparing to implement the Act, if enforcement is not enjoined by this Court, and states that it is pursuing its cross-claim in this case to have the Act declared unconstitutional as preempted by and in conflict with the Immigration and Naturalization Act and a violation of the commerce clause of the United States Constitution.. Tucson admits paragraphs through of Plaintiff s complaint.. Tucson does not contest the Plaintiff s beliefs as alleged in paragraphs through 0 of Plaintiff s complaint.. In response to paragraph, Tucson states that it seeks a declaration that the Act is unconstitutional which will preclude any disciplinary measures against the Plaintiff for failure to enforce the Act and therefore denies the allegations in this paragraph.. In response to paragraph of the Plaintiff s complaint, Tucson alleges that it will be subject to lawsuits in the event an injunction is not issued and that Tucson will be required to indemnify the Plaintiff for claims brought pursuant to A.R.S. - except if the Plaintiff acts in bad faith. See A.R.S. -(K. {A00.DOC/}
5 Case :-cv-00-dcb Document Filed 0// Page of 0. Tucson is without sufficient information and belief to respond to paragraphs through and therefore denies said allegations.. Tucson denies any factual allegation in the Plaintiff s complaint not expressly admitted herein. 0. Tucson denies that it has or will engage in conduct violating Plaintiff s civil rights as alleged in Counts One through Five of Plaintiff s complaint.. Tucson incorporates its prior answers above and joins Count Six of Plaintiff s complaint.. Tucson joins Plaintiff s request for a declaratory judgment pursuant to U.S.C. 0. Tucson s Cross-claim. Tucson is a municipal corporation in the State of Arizona and affirmatively alleges that it is a charter city formed pursuant to Article, Section of the Arizona Constitution with authority to exercise all powers under its charter except where inconsistent with the Arizona Constitution and general laws of the State.. Cross-defendant State of Arizona has legal authority to adopt general laws that Tucson is required to enforce to the extent such laws comply with the U.S. Constitution and the Arizona Constitution. {A00.DOC/}
6 Case :-cv-00-dcb Document Filed 0// Page of 0. Cross-defendant Jan Brewer is the Governor of the State of Arizona and as such is the highest ranking state constitutional officer who is the chief executive responsible for implementing the laws of Arizona in conformance with the United States Constitution and the Arizona Constitution.. This Court has jurisdiction over the cross-claim pursuant to U.S.C. and and the court s ancillary jurisdiction to the Plaintiff s claims. This Court has authority to grant declaratory relief pursuant to U.S.C. 0. This Court has pendent jurisdiction over any state law claims.. Pursuant to Article VI, Section of the United States Constitution, the laws of the United States are the supreme law of the land and all states are required to be bound thereby.. Pursuant to Article, Section of the Arizona Constitution, the Cross-defendants are required to recognize that the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.. The Cross-defendants are legally required to recognize and enforce the supremacy of the federal laws and Constitution. 0. The United States has plenary authority to control and regulate immigration which is exclusive of any state authority. {A00.DOC/}
7 Case :-cv-00-dcb Document Filed 0// Page of 0. The United States has fully occupied the field of immigration control and regulation through the adoption of the Immigration and Naturalization Act and subsequent amendments.. The State of Arizona, through the enforcement of SB 0, as amended by HB (the Act, seeks to control and regulate immigration in a manner that conflicts with federal immigration laws, policies and practices. If the Act is not enjoined, Tucson will be required by the Act to implement an unconstitutional law and will incur liability for that conduct.. Governor Jan Brewer in executing Executive Order 0-0 has acknowledged that the Act establishes a statewide policy to discourage and deter unlawful entry and presence of aliens and that the Act provides for immigration enforcement by local police agencies.. Executive Order 0-0 further acknowledges that the Governor is responsible for the supervision of the executive department and is obligated and empowered to see that the Act is enforced.. As part of that enforcement, Executive Order 0-0 declares that the Act prohibits cities, which includes the Cross-plaintiff, from limiting or restricting the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law... {A00.DOC/}
8 Case :-cv-00-dcb Document Filed 0// Page of 0. Tucson does not, and cannot under the supremacy clause, restrain or limit federal enforcement of immigration law within the City limits. Tucson cannot, however, enforce federal immigration law to the fullest extent permitted by federal law since it lacks the resources and training to do so and since such enforcement will conflict with federal law, policies and priorities for enforcement.. Tucson does not have an agreement with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Department pursuant to U.S.C. (G (a Section (g agreement. Such agreements provide the exclusive basis for delegation of federal immigration authority to local police agencies and provide for the training and supervision of local authorities to ensure that enforcement complies with federal law and constitutional rights.. A.R.S. -0 provides a procedure for the citation and release of a person arrested for a misdemeanor to be released at the site of the arrest in lieu of transporting the person to a law enforcement facility. Tucson used this procedure during fiscal year 00 for the immediate release upon citation of, persons arrested for criminal misdemeanors. These included citations for criminal speeding, driving under the influence, under age drinking and liquor offenses, minor drug offenses, assault, trespass, disorderly conduct, and similar offenses. {A00.DOC/}
9 Case :-cv-00-dcb Document Filed 0// Page of 0 Tucson does not currently condition these releases on the verification of the individual s immigration status with the federal government prior to their release.. The Act provides in A.R.S. -(B that: Any person who is arrested shall have the person s immigration status determined before the person is released. The person s immigration status shall be verified with the federal government... (emphasis added 0. The Act mandates the detention and verification of the immigration status of arrestees without any reasonable suspicion, probable cause or other independent legal basis for continued detention in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.. The Act mandates the detention and verification of the immigration status of arrestees regardless of other more urgent police duties and thereby usurps the local discretion over the exercise of the police power.. Tucson currently cooperates with federal immigration agents when individuals are identified as aliens unlawfully in the United States in the course of police investigations. Most of the time, Border Patrol can respond while an investigation is in process so that the Tucson police are not detaining the individual solely on immigration grounds. Occasionally, Border Patrol is unable to respond in a timely {A00.DOC/}
10 Case :-cv-00-dcb Document Filed 0// Page of 0 manner. In those instances, the individual is released and a report is forwarded to Border Patrol.. Tucson alleges on information and belief that the United States Border Patrol cannot guarantee that it can respond to every local law enforcement request to verify an individual s status or take custody of every undocumented alien from local law enforcement.. On information and belief, Tucson alleges that the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents will not be able to respond with an immediate verification of the immigration status of every person who receives a criminal misdemeanor citation within the City of Tucson and within the State of Arizona as required by A.R.S. -(B.. As a result, Tucson will be required to incarcerate persons who would have been released at the time of citation pending federal verification of the person s immigration status. That verification will be particularly difficult for natural born citizens who do not have a passport or other record with federal immigration agencies. The federal verifications may take days or weeks, substantially increasing the costs of incarceration for Tucson.. Other individuals arrested by the Tucson Police Department ( TPD may be ordered released by a court following an {A00.DOC/}
11 Case :-cv-00-dcb Document Filed 0// Page of 0 initial appearance. These releases may also come before there is verification of the person s immigration status by federal immigration officers, requiring continued detention of an individual, including natural born citizens and others lawfully in the United States, after a prosecutor or a judge has determined that the person should be released according to applicable law violates the separation of governmental powers and the individual s civil rights.. Enforcement of the Act by Tucson and other cities and counties will have the effect of dictating the enforcement of federal immigration law in accordance with state law instead of following enforcement priorities, policies, and direction of the federal government.. Tucson police regularly encounter persons from New Mexico and other states in the course of police stops, detentions and arrests.. The Act establishes in A.R.S. - that for a person who is stopped, detained or arrested, there is a presumption that person is not an alien unlawfully in the United States if the person produces an Arizona driver s license. For persons from New Mexico and other states where proof of citizenship is not required for a driver s license, there is no such presumption. Persons with New Mexico or other out-of-state licenses engaged in interstate commerce are thus {A00.DOC/}
12 Case :-cv-00-dcb Document Filed 0// Page of 0 required by the Act to obtain and carry additional documentation such as a passport or birth certificate, proving that they are citizens or lawful aliens. Such documentation is not normally carried by all persons engaged in interstate commerce. 0. If the Act is not enjoined, Tucson will be required to impose a burden of requiring additional proof of citizenship or lawful status upon persons from New Mexico and other states and required to give a preference to Arizona residents by recognizing the Arizona driver s license as the sole documentation necessary to establish a presumption of lawful status.. The imposition of a burden on out-of-state commerce and a preference for in-state commerce discriminates against interstate commerce and violates the commerce clause of the United States Constitution.. Tucson has suffered several years of reduced revenues that have resulted in layoffs, furloughs, and elimination of positions and services. The reduced revenues have also forced TPD to carefully prioritize its method and manner of implementing law enforcement.. Tucson is required by state law to adopt an annual budget effective July of each year. The City Manager has recommended that Tucson adopt a budget that does not include sufficient funds for the {A00.DOC/}
13 Case :-cv-00-dcb Document Filed 0// Page of 0 enforcement of federal immigration laws to the fullest extent permitted by federal law.. The reduced revenues have forced the TPD to carefully prioritize its method and manner of implementing law enforcement. Compliance with the Act will require TPD to change those priorities and may result in decreased investigation and prosecution of violent crimes against persons and other major felonies.. Tucson believes that there will be one or more court challenges under the Act by private individuals to contest its budget policies and other policies as adopted by the City to set priorities for law enforcement and policies regarding Tucson s executive authority over its local government.. The Act provides in A.R.S. -(H that any legal resident may bring a claim in superior court to challenge any City official or agency that implements a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to the fullest extent permitted by federal law. Section -(H interferes with the exercise of police power and prosecutorial discretion by Tucson by delegating control over these functions to individual legal residents of the State of Arizona whose motives may or may not be consistent with the governing body and public officials responsible for law enforcement. {A00.DOC/}
14 Case :-cv-00-dcb Document Filed 0// Page of 0. Tucson is entitled to a declaratory relief that the Act does not impact its rights to establish budget policies and other policies that do not enforce federal immigration law to the fullest extent permitted by federal law.. Tucson will suffer irreparable injury unless this Court enjoins the enforcement of the Act. Tucson has no plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law against the enforcement of SB 0.. Tucson is entitled to a declaration of its rights to establish budget policies and other policies that do not enforce federal immigration law to the fullest extent permitted by federal law without violating the Act. Count One 0. The Act is preempted by federal immigration law and Cross-plaintiff is entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief prohibiting the Cross-defendants from enforcing the Act. Count Two. The Act delegates the inalienable police power of the government to individuals and Cross-plaintiff is entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief holding A.R.S. -(H unconstitutional. {A00.DOC/}
15 Case :-cv-00-dcb Document Filed 0// Page of 0 Count Three. In the alternative, Cross-plaintiff is entitled to declaratory relief that the budget policies and other policies lawfully adopted by Tucson which do not enforce federal immigration law to the full extent permitted by federal law do not violate the Act. Count Four. The Act requires Tucson to impose a burden on out-ofstate commerce and a preference for in-state commerce that discriminates against interstate commerce and violates the commerce clause of the United States Constitution. Cross-plaintiff is entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief prohibiting the Cross-defendants from enforcing the Act. WHEREFORE, the City of Tucson prays that this Court grant judgment to the City as follows: A. Declaring that enforcement of SB 0 would violate the United States Constitution as set forth herein; B. Preliminarily enjoining Cross-defendants from any enforcement of SB 0 or enforcement of such provisions as the Court determines to be unconstitutional; {A00.DOC/}
16 Case :-cv-00-dcb Document Filed 0// Page of C. Permanently enjoining Cross-defendants from any enforcement of SB 0 or enforcement of such provisions as the Court determines to be unconstitutional; D. Awarding the City its costs and attorneys fees; and E. Awarding such other and further relief as may be just and appropriate. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this th day of May, 0. MICHAEL G. RANKIN City Attorney By: /s/ Michael W.L. McCrory Michael W.L. McCrory Principal Assistant City Attorney 0 Copies of the foregoing mailed on this th day of May, 0, to: Richard M. Martinez 0 South Convent Avenue Tucson, Arizona 0 Stephen Montoya Augustine B. Jimenez Montoya Jimenez, PA 00 N Central Avenue, #0 Phoenix, AZ 0 Attorneys for Plaintiff /s/ Michelle Gensman {A00.DOC/}
State Immigration Enforcement Legal Analysis of Amended MS HB 488 (March 2012)
State Immigration Enforcement Legal Analysis of Amended MS HB 488 (March 2012) This memo will discuss the constitutionality of certain sections of Mississippi s HB 488 after House amendments. A. INTRODUCTION
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA. The United States of America, No. Plaintiff, COMPLAINT
Case :-cv-0-nvw Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Tony West Assistant Attorney General Dennis K. Burke United States Attorney Arthur R. Goldberg Assistant Director, Federal Programs Branch Varu Chilakamarri
More information)(
Case 1:07-cv-03339-MGC Document 1 Filed 04/26/07 Page 1 of 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------)( LUMUMBA BANDELE, DJIBRIL
More informationCase 2:07-cv SMM Document 59 Filed 04/30/08 Page 1 of 15
Case 2:07-cv-01089-SMM Document 59 Filed 04/30/08 Page 1 of 15 LAUGHLIN McDONALD* NEIL BRADLEY* NANCY G. ABUDU* American Civil Liberties Union Voting Rights Project 2600 Marquis One Tower 245 Peachtree
More informationImpact of Arizona v. United States and Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights v. Governor of Georgia on Georgia s Immigration Law 1
Impact of Arizona v. United States and Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights v. Governor of Georgia on Georgia s Immigration Law 1 I. Introduction By: Benish Anver and Rocio Molina February 15, 2013
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA TERRENCE BRESSI, Case No. Plaintiff, VERIFIED COMPLAINT. vs.
1 1 Ralph E. Ellinwood Ralph E. Ellinwood, Attorney at Law, PLLC SBA: 0 PO Box 01 Tucson, AZ 1 Phone: (0) 1- Fax: () 1- ree@yourbestdefense.com IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT
More informationFOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Excerpted from AILA's Immigration Litigation Toolbox, th Ed. ( 0, American Immigration Lawyers Association), and distributed with permission. VIKRAM BADRINATH, P.C. 00 North Stone Avenue, Suite 0 Tucson,
More informationCase 4:08-cv RCC Document 1 Filed 02/25/08 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA TUCSON DIVISION
Case 4:08-cv-00139-RCC Document 1 Filed 02/25/08 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA TUCSON DIVISION GEORGE VICTOR GARCIA, on behalf of himself and the class of
More informationIN THE Supreme Court of the United States
No. 11-182 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF ARIZONA, ET AL., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
More informationSUMMARY. The Dept. of Economic Security must verify the immigration status of applicants for child welfare services and certain other public benefits.
NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER 2005 State Legislation Restricting Benefits for Immigrants or Promoting State and Local Enforcement of Immigration Laws December 14, 2005 AL HB 452 Would amend the state
More informationEffects of Arizona v. U.S. on the Validity of State Immigrant Laws 1 By: Andrea Carcamo-Cavazos and Leslye E. Orloff
Effects of Arizona v. U.S. on the Validity of State Immigrant Laws 1 By: Andrea Carcamo-Cavazos and Leslye E. Orloff The National Immigrant Women s Advocacy Project American University, Washington College
More information) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case :0-cv-00-SRB Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 Valle del Sol, et al., vs. Plaintiffs, Michael B. Whiting, et al., Defendants. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA No. CV 0-0-PHX-SRB
More informationState and Local Enforcement of Federal Immigration Law. The Arizona Experiment
International Association of Chiefs of Police, Inc. 2010 Annual Conference Orlando, FL Oct. 25th State and Local Enforcement of Federal Immigration Law The Arizona Experiment Beverly Ginn, Edwards & Ginn
More informationGENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2017 H 2 HOUSE BILL 63 Committee Substitute Favorable 3/14/17
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION H HOUSE BILL Committee Substitute Favorable // Short Title: Citizens Protection Act of. (Public) Sponsors: Referred to: February, 1 1 1 A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
More informationCase 4:08-cv SNL Document 1 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION
Case 4:08-cv-00364-SNL Document 1 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION BRETT DARROW, Plaintiff, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED v. Cause No.
More informationPRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF South Carolina s Senate Bill 20
PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF South Carolina s Senate Bill 20 Summary of major provisions: South Carolina s Senate Bill 20 forces all South Carolinians to carry specific forms of identification at all times
More informationHOUSE BILL 2162 AN ACT
Conference Engrossed State of Arizona House of Representatives Forty-ninth Legislature Second Regular Session HOUSE BILL AN ACT AMENDING SECTIONS -0 AND -0, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; AMENDING SECTION -,
More informationCase 2:10-cv SRB Document 356 Filed 07/14/10 Page 1 of 9
Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 356 Filed 07/14/10 Page 1 of 9 Carolyn B. Lamm (pro hac vice) Sara Elizabeth Dill (pro hac vice) Counsel of Record Perry, Krumsiek & Jack, LLP President P.O. Box 578924
More informationCase 1:14-cv RB-SMV Document 1 Filed 11/12/14 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
Case 1:14-cv-01025-RB-SMV Document 1 Filed 11/12/14 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL NO: 1:14-cv-1025 THE CITY
More informationSTATE OMNIBUS BILLS AND LAWS January 1 June 30, 2011
State Chamber Bill # Status Title Summary AL H 56 Enacted This law addresses a range of topics including law enforcement, employment, education, public benefits, harbor/transport/rental housing, voting
More informationGENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2017 H 1 HOUSE BILL 63. Short Title: Citizens Protection Act of (Public)
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION H 1 HOUSE BILL Short Title: Citizens Protection Act of. (Public) Sponsors: Referred to: Representatives Warren, Collins, Jordan, and Adams (Primary Sponsors).
More informationCase 2:12-cv SM-JCW Document 1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA * *
Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW Document 1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA * Plaintiff * v. * THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS * Defendant
More informationGENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2011 S 1 SENATE BILL 604. Short Title: NC Illegal Immigration Enforcement Act. (Public) April 19, 2011
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 0 S 1 SENATE BILL 0 Short Title: NC Illegal Immigration Enforcement Act. (Public) Sponsors: Referred to: Senators East; Allran, Brock, and Hise. Rules and Operations
More informationCase 2:11-cv IPJ Document 1 Filed 08/01/11 Page 1 of 45 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case 2:11-cv-02746-IPJ Document 1 Filed 08/01/11 Page 1 of 45 FILED 2011 Aug-01 PM 03:10 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION
More informationState of Arizona v. United States of America: The Supreme Court Hears Arguments on SB 1070
FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM State of Arizona v. United States of America: The Supreme Court Hears Arguments on SB 1070 Introduction In its lawsuit against the state of Arizona, the United
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
0 0 Michael J. Meehan, Of Counsel (#00) MUNGER CHADWICK, P.L.C. National Bank Plaza North Wilmot, Suite 00 Tucson, Arizona E-mail: mmeehan@mungerchadwick.com Telephone: (0) -00 Facsimile: (0) -0 Tom Henze
More informationPlaintiffs, COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT. Plaintiffs American Catalog Mailers Association ( ACMA ) and
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA ) ) SS COUNTY OF HUGHES ) IN CIRCUIT COURT SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT AMERICAN CATALOG MAILERS ASSOCIATION and NETCHOICE, _ vs. Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ANDY GERLACH,
More informationARIZONA, et al., UNITED STATES, No In The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 11-182 In The Supreme Court of the United States -------------------------- --------------------------- ARIZONA, et al., v. UNITED STATES, Petitioners, Respondent. -------------------------- --------------------------
More informationCase2:08-cv KSH-MAS Document 1 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY. Defendant.
Case2:08-cv-00711-KSH-MAS Document 1 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY PAUL M TAKACS, Individually, and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated,
More informationDISTRICT COURT, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO. 201 La Porte Avenue, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO Phone: (970) Plaintiff:
DISTRICT COURT, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO 201 La Porte Avenue, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 Phone: (970) 494-3500 Plaintiff: COLORADO OIL AND GAS ASSOCIATION, v. Defendant: CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
1 1 1 0 1 JOSEPH D. ELFORD (S.B. NO. 1) Americans for Safe Access Webster St., Suite 0 Oakland, CA Telephone: () - Fax: () 1-0 Counsel for Plaintiffs IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN
More informationMILWAUKEE POLICE DEPARTMENT
GENERAL ORDER: 2016-17 ISSUED: March 24, 2016 MILWAUKEE POLICE DEPARTMENT STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE 130 FOREIGN NATIONALS DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY - IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT EFFECTIVE: March 24, 2016 REVIEWED/APPROVED
More informationCase 1:10-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/23/10 Page 1 of 9
Case 1:10-cv-00039 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/23/10 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BROWNSVILLE DIVISION ALBERTO VASQUEZ-MARTINEZ, ) PETITIONER, PLAINTIFF,
More informationCase 2:18-cv JAM-KJN Document 1 Filed 03/06/18 Page 1 of 18
Case :-cv-000-jam-kjn Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General MCGREGOR SCOTT United States Attorney AUGUST FLENTJE Special Counsel WILLIAM C. PEACHEY Director EREZ
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION
Case: 4:15-cv-00570-HEA Doc. #: 2 Filed: 04/02/15 Page: 1 of 12 PageID #: 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION ) DONYA PIERCE, et al. ) ) Plaintiffs, ) )
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS ELECTRONICALLY FILED 2014-Apr-16 13:27:13 60CV-14-1495 C06D06 : 17 Pages FREEDOM KOHLS; TOYLANDA SMITH; JOE FLAKES; and BARRY HAAS PLAINTIFFS vs. Case No.
More informationCase 3:17-cv DJH Document 3 Filed 02/06/17 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 13
Case 3:17-cv-00071-DJH Document 3 Filed 02/06/17 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION [Filed Electronically] JACOB HEALEY and LARRY LOUIS
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION BRIAN McCANN, ) 013CH105:S3 ).CALE ND AC./Roo o a TIME. 0,):00 Plaintiff, ) Case Number: Decl3r tory Jd9 t ) -- vs. )
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MONTANA. Plaintiff, Defendants. INTRODUCTION
Case 1:18-cv-00040-SPW Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 1 of 16 Shahid Haque BORDER CROSSING LAW FIRM 7 West 6th Avenue, Ste. 2A Helena, MT 59624 (406) 594-2004 Matt Adams (pro hac vice application forthcoming)
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:16-cv-02441-MCE-EFB Document 33 Filed 04/30/18 Page 1 of 13 ANDREW L. SCHLAFLY (admitted pro hac vice) General Counsel Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc. New Jersey Bar No. 04066-2003
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case :-cv-00-jjt Document Filed 0// Page of 0 SUSAN MARTIN (AZ#0 DANIEL BONNETT (AZ#0 JENNIFER KROLL (AZ#0 MARTIN & BONNETT, P.L.L.C. N. nd Street, Suite Phoenix, Arizona 0 Telephone: (0 0-00 smartin@martinbonnett.com
More informationCIV97-476PHXR0S. United States Attorney II I III II District of Arizona MR STATE OF ARIZONA; J. FIFE
JANET RENO Attorney General of the United States ISABELLE KATZ PINZLER Acting Assistant Attorney General STEVEN H. ROSENBADM Chief MELLIE H. NELSON Deputy Chief MARK S. MASLING Senior Trial Attorney U.S.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Case :0-cv-0-SRB Document Filed /0/ Page of 0 United States of America, v. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Plaintiff, State of Arizona; and Janice K. Brewer, Governor of
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION INGRID BUQUER, BERLIN URTIZ, ) and LOUISA ADAIR, on their own behalf ) and on behalf of those similarly situated, ) ) Plaintiffs,
More informationCase 1:14-cv RGS Document 1 Filed 09/22/14 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case 1:14-cv-13670-RGS Document 1 Filed 09/22/14 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS PHUONG NGO and ) COMMONWEALTH SECOND ) AMENDMENT, INC, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) VERIFIED
More informationPlaintiff John David Emerson, for his Complaint against Defendant Timothy
STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF DAKOTA DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT John David Emerson, Court File No.: vs. Plaintiff, Case Type: OTHER CIVIL Timothy Leslie, Dakota County Sheriff, COMPLAINT FOR
More informationNOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF SANTA FE COUNTY CLASS ACTION STRIP SEARCH CASE
ELIZABETH LEYBA, NATASHA APODACA, NANCY ELLIN, MONICA GARCIA, LUCY M. MARQUEZ, MARK MILLER, COPPER PERRY, DAVID SANDOVAL, KRISTI SEIBOLD, RUSSELLA SERNA, and KIMBERLY WRIGHT, on their own behalf and on
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT United States of America, v. Plaintiff-Appellee, Case No. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona No. CV 10-1413-PHX-SRB
More informationCase 1:14-cv BAH Document 20-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 1 of 49 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Case 1:14-cv-01966-BAH Document 20-1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 1 of 49 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JOSEPH ARPAIO, v. Plaintiff, BARACK OBAMA, ET AL. Case 1:14-cv-01966 Defendants.
More informationCase 5:11-cv Document 1 Filed 06/17/11 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
Case 5:11-cv-00490 Document 1 Filed 06/17/11 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force, Joey Cardenas,
More informationCase 2:15-cv Document 1 Filed 09/30/15 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Case 2:15-cv-09300 Document 1 Filed 09/30/15 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS ALDER CROMWELL, and ) CODY KEENER, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Case No. v. ) ) KRIS KOBACH,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Plaintiffs, Case No.: VERIFIED COMPLAINT INTRODUCTION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ROBERT M. OWSIANY and EDWARD F. WISNESKI v. Plaintiffs, Case No.: THE CITY OF GREENSBURG, Defendant. VERIFIED COMPLAINT INTRODUCTION Plaintiff
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:16-at-01281 Document 1 Filed 10/13/16 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN ) PHYSICIANS & SURGEONS, INC., ) ) Civil Action
More informationCase 5:16-cv JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 11/04/16 Page 1 of 12 Page ID #:1
Case :-cv-00-jgb-sp Document Filed /0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 STAN S. MALLISON (Bar No. ) StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com HECTOR R. MARTINEZ (Bar No. ) HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com MARCO A. PALAU (Bar No. 0) MPalau@TheMMLawFirm.com
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Case :-cv-0-gms Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 0 ERNEST GALVAN (CA Bar No. 0)* KENNETH M. WALCZAK (CA Bar No. )* ROSEN, BIEN & GALVAN, LLP Montgomery Street, 0th Floor San Francisco, California 0- Telephone:
More informationMonica Molina Professor Raymond Smith Race and Ethnicity in American Politics April 16, 2013
Monica Molina Professor Raymond Smith Race and Ethnicity in American Politics April 16, 2013 I. The Racialization of the Immigration Issue: An Example of Discrimination in Arizona Policy II. Keywords a.
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CENTRAL DIVISION CASE NO. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
RICHARD L. DUQUETTE Attorney at Law P.O. Box 2446 Carlsbad, CA 92018 2446 SBN 108342 Telephone: (760 730 0500 Attorney for Petitioner CHRISTINA HARRIS SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:06-cv-00315-RCL Document 1 Filed 02/23/06 Page 1 of 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CARL A. BARNES ) DC Jail ) 1903 E Street, SE ) Washington, DC 20021 ) DCDC 278-872,
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FRESNO UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 JOSEPH D. ELFORD (S.B. NO. 1 Americans for Safe Access 1 Webster Street #0 Oakland, CA 1 Telephone: (1 - Fax: ( -00 Counsel for Plaintiffs IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
More informationIMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT
SOUTH TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT PAGE 1 of 6 I. POLICY This agency recognizes and values the diversity of the community it serves. Therefore, this agency shall conduct all immigration enforcement activities
More informationThe Arizona Immigration Law: Racial Discrimination Prohibited
The Arizona Immigration Law: Racial Discrimination Prohibited Hans A. von Spakovsky Abstract: Why has the Obama Administration, as part of its lawsuit against the Arizona statute that attempts to help
More informationHOUSE REPUBLICAN STAFF ANALYSIS
HOUSE REPUBLICAN STAFF ANALYSIS Bill: Senate File 481 Committee: Public Safety Floor Manager: Rep. Holt Date: April 3, 2018 Staff: Amanda Wille (1-5230) House Committee: House Floor: Senate Floor: Governor:
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE, AT NASHVILLE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE, AT NASHVILLE BACKPAGE.COM, LLC, v. Plaintiff, ROBERT E. COOPER, JR., Attorney General of the State of Tennessee; and TONY CLARK;
More informationCase 2:16-cv DN Document 2 Filed 01/15/16 Page 1 of 30
Case 2:16-cv-00038-DN Document 2 Filed 01/15/16 Page 1 of 30 Marcus R. Mumford (12737) MUMFORD PC 405 South Main Street, Suite 975 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone: (801) 428-2000 Email: mrm@mumfordpc.com
More informationSENATE BILL 1070 AN ACT
On April, 0, Governor Jan Brewer Signed Senate Bill 00 into law. SB00 was enacted as Laws 0, Chapter. House Bill made additional changes to Laws 0, Chapter. Below is an engrossed version of SB00 with the
More informationIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA HARRIS, et al., Plaintiffs 1CV-11-2228 v. (JONES) CORBETT, et al. Defendants Electronically Filed PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR EMERGENCY
More informationCourthouse News Service
Case 4:09-cv-00543-JJM Document 1 Filed 09/24/09 Page 1 of 12 John Buse (CA Bar No. 163156) pro hac vice application pending Justin Augustine (CA Bar No. 235561) pro hac vice application pending CENTER
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION CHRISTOPHER L. CRANE, DAVID A. ) ENGLE, ANASTASIA MARIE ) CARROLL, RICARDO DIAZ, ) LORENZO GARZA, FELIX ) LUCIANO,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION ) STUDIES, ) 1629 K Street, NW, Suite 600, ) Washington, DC 20
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES, 1629 K Street, NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20006, Civil Action No. Plaintiff, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION AND
More informationCase 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 07/05/18 Page 1 of 5 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Case No.
Case 1:18-cv-01597 Document 1 Filed 07/05/18 Page 1 of 5 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEMOCRACY FORWARD FOUNDATION, 1333 H Street, NW, 11 th Floor Washington, DC 20005,
More informationANALYSIS OF 2011 LEGIS. IMMIGRATION RELATED LAWS
ANALYSIS OF 2011 LEGIS. IMMIGRATION RELATED LAWS (THIS IS A DRAFT AND WILL BE REFINED AS THE NEW LAWS TAKE INTO EFFECT AND LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH AND GENERAL COUNSEL HAS RENUMBERED, RECONCILED AND MERGED
More informationNo IN THE Supreme Court of the United States. ARIZONA, et al., UNITED STATES,
No. 11-182 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ARIZONA, et al., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES, Respondent. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRIEF
More informationCase 2:10-cv-01099-TC Document 2 Filed 11/05/10 Page 1 of 14 E. Craig Smay #2985 174 E. South Temple Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 ecslawyer@aol.com, cari@smaylaw.com Telephone Number (801) 539-8515 Fax Number
More informationCase 2:14-cv SPL Document 25 Filed 09/11/14 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Case :-cv-000-spl Document Filed 0// Page of William R. Mettler, Esq. S. Price Road Chandler, Arizona Arizona State Bar No. 00 (0 0-0 wrmettler@wrmettlerlaw.com Attorney for Defendant Zenith Financial
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA Charlotte Division
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA Charlotte Division DANIEL MARQUES, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18-cv-228 Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, Defendant. COMPLAINT
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR CHELAN COUNTY. Defendant. I. INTRODUCTION
1 SMP RETAIL, LLC, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR CHELAN COUNTY Plaintiff, CITY OF WENATCHEE, a Washington municipal corporation, Defendant. No. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE
More informationCase 2:17-cv SPL Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 1 of 16
Case :-cv-0-spl Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 Kathleen E. Brody (Bar No. 0) Brenda Muñoz Furnish (Bar No. 00) ACLU Foundation of Arizona 0 North th Street, Suite Phoenix, AZ 0 Telephone: 0-0- Email: kbrody@acluaz.org
More informationCase 1:14-cv M-LDA Document 1 Filed 07/23/14 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
Case 1:14-cv-00337-M-LDA Document 1 Filed 07/23/14 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND JARREN GENDREAU : : vs. : Case No: : JOSUE D. CANARIO, :
More informationCOMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS. Introduction
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND PROVIDENCE, SC. SUPERIOR COURT SHAUNNE N. THOMAS, : : Plaintiff, : : VS. : C.A. No. : JUSTICE ROBERT G. FLANDERS, : JR., in his Official Capacity as : Appointed Receiver to the City
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 JOSEPH D. ELFORD (S.B. No. 1 Americans for Safe Access 1 Webster Street, Suite 0 Oakland, CA 1 Telephone: (1 - Fax: ( 1-0 Counsel for Plaintiffs IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF HAWAII FOUNDATION LOIS K. PERRIN # 8065 P.O. Box 3410 Honolulu, Hawaii 96801 Telephone: (808) 522-5900 Facsimile: (808) 522-5909 Email: lperrin@acluhawaii.org Attorney
More informationVOTING RIGHTS ACT SUBMISSION
TERRY GODDARD ATTORNEY GENERAL Office of the Attorney General State of Arizona Jessica G. Funkhouser Direct Line (602) 542-7826 VOTING RIGHTS ACT SUBMISSION VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS/OVERNIGHT DELIVERY TO: Mr.
More informationVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
DISTRICT COURT, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO P.O. Box 192, 307 Moffat Ave., Hot Sulphur Springs, CO 80451 Plaintiff: TOWN OF WINTER PARK, a Colorado home rule municipal corporation; v. Defendants: CORNERSTONE
More information2:15-cv PDB-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 02/11/15 Pg 1 of 8 Pg ID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
2:15-cv-10547-PDB-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 02/11/15 Pg 1 of 8 Pg ID 1 Timothy Davis and Hatema Davis, Individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT CHARLESTON. Case No.:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT CHARLESTON DREW WILLIAMS, JASON PRICE, COURTNEY SHANNON vs. Plaintiffs, CITY OF CHARLESTON, JAY GOLDMAN, in his individual
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON. Plaintiff, Defendants. INTRODUCTION
Case :-cv-00 ECF No. filed 0// PageID. Page of 0 Matt Adams Glenda M. Aldana Madrid Leila Kang () - John Midgley ACLU OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION 0 Fifth Avenue, Suite 0 Seattle, WA () - ext. 0 UNITED STATES
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CASE 0:12-cv-00738-MJD-AJB Document 3 Filed 03/29/12 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Melissa Hill, v. Plaintiff, Civil File No. 12-CV-738 MJD/AJB AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Case 3:17-cv-05595 Document 1 Filed 07/31/17 Page 1 of 22 PageID: 1 Michael P. Hrycak NJ Attorney ID # 2011990 316 Lenox Avenue Westfield, NJ 07090 (908)789-1870 michaelhrycak@yahoo.com Counsel for Plaintiffs
More informationCase 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 06/22/18 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:18-cv-01475 Document 1 Filed 06/22/18 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, 80 F Street, N.W., Washington,
More informationDISTRICT OF ARIZONA. objection to the PSR based on Blakely v. Washington, 2004 WL (2004).
PAUL K. CHARLTON United States Attorney District of Arizona GARY M. RESTAINO Assistant U.S. Attorney Two Renaissance Square 40 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4408 Arizona State Bar
More informationMEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
POLICY AND PROCEDURE # 72 MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY SUBJECT: Intoxicated Persons at the Medical University of South Carolina Trauma Center. (CALEA 91.2.3.a) EFFECTIVE
More informationGENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2011 H 1 HOUSE BILL 343. Short Title: Support Law Enforcement/Safe Neighborhoods.
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 0 H HOUSE BILL Short Title: Support Law Enforcement/Safe Neighborhoods. (Public) Sponsors: Referred to: Representatives Cleveland, Blust, and Hilton (Primary
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION In re, No. A On Habeas Corpus. Related Appeal No. A County Superior Court No. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS [Attorney
More informationCase 2:18-cv Document 1 Filed 12/21/18 Page 1 of 8
Case :-cv-0 Document Filed // Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE FAMILIES BELONG TOGETHER WASHINGTON COALITION and MOHAMMED KILANI, v. Plaintiffs, THE
More informationCase 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 08/31/17 Page 1 of 14
Case 1:17-cv-06654 Document 1 Filed 08/31/17 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Ernest Moore, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, -v- 33 Union
More informationIMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT
PHOENIX POLICE DEPARTMENT Rev. 10/15 PAGE 1 1. GENERAL INFORMATION A. The Department shall conduct all immigration enforcement activities in a manner consistent with federal and state laws regulating immigration
More informationCase 1:18-cv RBK-AMD Document 1 Filed 07/02/18 Page 1 of 16 PageID: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Case 1:18-cv-11321-RBK-AMD Document 1 Filed 07/02/18 Page 1 of 16 PageID: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY : ISREL DILLARD, both individually : and on behalf of a class of others similarly
More informationCase 5:17-cv OLG Document 6-1 Filed 06/02/17 Page 1 of 18
Case 5:17-cv-00489-OLG Document 6-1 Filed 06/02/17 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION CITY OF SAN ANTONIO TEXAS; REY A. SALDAÑA, in
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
GREGORY SMITH Plaintiff, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 1350 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20004 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JEANETTE MYRICK, in her individual capacity, 1901
More informationCase 1:13-cv JTN Doc #16 Filed 03/10/14 Page 1 of 22 Page ID#81
Case 1:13-cv-01351-JTN Doc #16 Filed 03/10/14 Page 1 of 22 Page ID#81 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION JOHANN DEFFERT, v. Plaintiff, OFFICER WILLIAM
More information